"After nearly three years of work, I have a pleasure to announce that Qubes 1.0 has finally been released! [...] I would like to thank all the developers who have worked on this project. Creating Qubes OS has been a great challenge, especially for such a small team as ours, but ultimately, I'm very glad with the final outcome - it really is a stable and reasonably secure desktop OS."

It seems it's a Linux distribution that launches a number of applications within a VM? Why not use chroot?

To me it seems Linux doesn't really have much issues regarding viruses, worms or trojans. The real danger today is phishing and I'm not sure this setup helps.

A few days ago I saw this guy on TV. He got a call from a "Microsoft" person with an Indian accent. He told him Microsoft detected his PC having problems. They walked him through a number of steps making him a crucial member of the team that set his PC up for outside abuse.

But basically it's a modified Linux distribution. Therefor I think it kind of stretches the definition of what awards an operating system badge.

Also I think it solves a problem that's not really there. I mean, it's not like hordes of Linux users are running around naked in the streets in blind panic because their desktops are hit by viruses. I suspect that in practice all these extra security layers provider more hassle than the benefit of extra security.

What would be nice is to have some kind of system that allows the user to run any application of choice with added security and make this system an optional install for any Linux distribution.

Not every feature or bell 'n' whistle deserves an entire new "operating system". What is you're happy with your Slackware or Ubuntu, but you do like this idea?

It's okay to call itself an operating system, but if I google around it seems it's really yet another Linux distribution.

The feature that stands out is that it boots an entire virtual Linux host just for you to run an application.

What I ask myself is does this extra security really solves anything? How many desktop Linux users are the victims of any type of malware (not including Adobe Flash)? Does it protect again user errors, phishing attacks, DNS spoofs?

If you are paranoid you may like this, but you'd need to give up your current favorite operating system.

To me it seems you'd be far better of using any common Linux distribution and educate yourself (daily if possible) using Linux. Do all the security basics, be smart and be up-to-date and you'll be fine.

Considering it is based on Linux I can see why they thought this solution was the only reasonable one.

If each process would have it's own mount table (and in turn it's own view of the filesystem, including multiplexing of resources) as in Plan9 and processes could only communicate through the filesystem and not through some obscure system calls there would not have been any need for this what so ever because that together with the MMU would been enough. Chroot, as pointer out earlier would not have been a reasonable alternative either.

The overhead of the solution they came up with must be incredibly high. It is an ugly workaround, but it's nice they made it work anyway.

This sounds like use of a virtual machine monitor (Xen, in this case) to provide separation between applications, some drivers, and other processes, and to run them in an unprivileged mode. Something that things like Minix and most true microkernel OSes do without the VMM .

Is it more secure than Linux chroot? Probably. More secure than FreeBSD jails/UML/<your favorite app virtualization scheme here>? Depends on how secure you think Xen is. It's a fairly substantial amount of code regardless. Unless Qubes can run any general-purpose OS in one of the "appVM"s, I think the effort would probably have been better spent on one of the other technologies mentioned above.

I'd be more interested in something lighter and more integrated, like Selinux Sandboxing (hm, something to look into I guess).

Funny how the installation guide almost attacks NoScript - lol, what is that all about? Especially from people focused on security:

"Note: Be sure that you use a modern, non-handicapped browser to access the links below (e.g. disable the NoScript and the likes extensions that try to turn your Web Browser essentially into the 90's Mosaic)."